Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases

Download statistics - Document (COUNTER):

Pauer, Frederic; Gobel, Jens; Storf, Holger; Litzkendorf, Svenja; Babac, Ana et al.: Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases. In: Interactive Journal of Medical Research 5 (2016), Nr. 3, e24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.5822

Repository version

To cite the version in the repository, please use this identifier: https://doi.org/10.15488/525

Selected time period:

year: 
month: 

Sum total of downloads: 337




Thumbnail
Abstract: 
BACKGROUND: The European Union considers diseases to be rare when they affect less than 5 in 10,000 people. It is estimated that there are between 5000 and 8000 different rare diseases. Consistent with this diversity, the quality of information available on the Web varies considerably. Thus, quality criteria for websites about rare diseases are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate a catalog of quality criteria suitable for rare diseases. METHODS: First, relevant certificates and quality recommendations for health information websites were identified through a comprehensive Web search. Second, all considered quality criteria of each certification program and catalog were examined, extracted into an overview table, and analyzed by thematic content. Finally, an interdisciplinary expert group verified the relevant quality criteria. RESULTS: We identified 9 quality certificates and criteria catalogs for health information websites with 304 single criteria items. Through this, we aggregated 163 various quality criteria, each assigned to one of the following categories: thematic, technical, service, content, and legal. Finally, a consensus about 13 quality criteria for websites offering medical information on rare diseases was determined. Of these categories, 4 (data protection concept, imprint, creation and updating date, and possibility to contact the website provider) were identified as being the most important for publishing medical information about rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of different quality criteria appearing within a relatively small number of criteria catalogs shows that the opinion of what is important in the quality of health information differs. In addition, to define useful quality criteria for websites about rare diseases, which are an essential source of information for many patients, a trade-off is necessary between the high standard of quality criteria for health information websites in general and the limited provision of information about some rare diseases. Finally, transparently presented quality assessments can help people to find reliable information and to assess its quality.
License of this version: CC BY 2.0 Unported
Document Type: Article
Publishing status: publishedVersion
Issue Date: 2016
Appears in Collections:Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät

distribution of downloads over the selected time period:

downloads by country:

pos. country downloads
total perc.
1 image of flag of Germany Germany 182 54.01%
2 image of flag of United States United States 44 13.06%
3 image of flag of Sweden Sweden 16 4.75%
4 image of flag of Russian Federation Russian Federation 16 4.75%
5 image of flag of No geo information available No geo information available 12 3.56%
6 image of flag of China China 8 2.37%
7 image of flag of Netherlands Netherlands 7 2.08%
8 image of flag of Ukraine Ukraine 5 1.48%
9 image of flag of Indonesia Indonesia 5 1.48%
10 image of flag of Czech Republic Czech Republic 4 1.19%
    other countries 38 11.28%

Further download figures and rankings:


Hinweis

Zur Erhebung der Downloadstatistiken kommen entsprechend dem „COUNTER Code of Practice for e-Resources“ international anerkannte Regeln und Normen zur Anwendung. COUNTER ist eine internationale Non-Profit-Organisation, in der Bibliotheksverbände, Datenbankanbieter und Verlage gemeinsam an Standards zur Erhebung, Speicherung und Verarbeitung von Nutzungsdaten elektronischer Ressourcen arbeiten, welche so Objektivität und Vergleichbarkeit gewährleisten sollen. Es werden hierbei ausschließlich Zugriffe auf die entsprechenden Volltexte ausgewertet, keine Aufrufe der Website an sich.

Search the repository


Browse